Dirty money turns out dirty science

[L]aw cases can turn almost entirely on an understanding of
the underlying technical or scientific subject matter.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

(Science magazine, April 24, 1998)

Paraphrasing the honorable Justice Breyer, if science can
“almost entirely” shape law and public policy then laws based on
fraudulent “science” wreak havoc with societal welfare by subverting law
and justice — bad data produce bad law. On point, Science recently
noted that George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American
Medical Association was “booted” by the AMA brass for his “blatant
attempt to influence events in Washington.” How so? By publishing a
partisan “scientific” study entitled; “Would You Say You ‘Had Sex’ If
… ?” AMA Executive Vice President Dr. E. Ratcliffe Anderson fired his
editor for undermining JAMA’s “integrity,” involving JAMA in a political
debate “that has nothing to do with science or medicine … in a blatant
attempt to influence events in Washington.”

Lundberg had popped Reinisch’s oral sex “data” out from under the
table and onto the head of the JAMA queue for the Jan. 20 issue. Knowing
mainstream media regularly cited JAMA for its weekly health reports,
like World Controller, Mustapha Mond in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New
World,” Lundberg could use Kinsey Institute “science” to “turn”
congressional “understanding” of oral sex into a modern form of oral
communication. For, based on Reinisch’s “study,” Clinton might be
unzipped but truthful.

According to press reports, Lundberg’s lawyer “hinted that litigation
might be in the works,” while Reinisch as the Kinsey Institute sex guru,
gasped, “shocked” at charges that her 1991 “study” was a partisan effort
to “turn” congressional understanding. Perish the thought! Instead, the
way Reinisch looked at it, firing Lundberg was an AMA conspiracy to
violate the “academic freedom” of serious scientists like herself. Yes
indeedy.

As the AMA offered no opinion regarding the quality of
Reinisch’s 1991 Kinsey Institute technical or scientific “study,” her
alleged data could support Clinton’s claim that he never had sex with
his young intern. For, of 599 allegedly largely “moderate” or
“conservative” college students, Reinisch claims 59 percent said “no”
when asked, “Would you say you ‘had sex’ with someone if the most
intimate behavior you engaged in” was oral-genital contact. Then, there
is a September ABC News poll which found 81 percent of their
sample said “sexual relations” included oral sex. The two survey
discrepancies have been put down to differences in the samples or to the
ABC poll reflecting post-scandal public savvy. But, to believe the
Kinsey Institute might produce clean data one needs to believe both
Reinisch and the Kinsey Institute.

Reinisch carefully conceals, however, the Kinsey Institute’s
underlying business interests in creating phony sex science. Reinisch
knows the Kinsey Institute was built by a collection of sexual
psychopaths, meticulously detailed in Dr. Judith Reisman’s latest book,Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, (1998)
and
confirmed by the recent British Yorkshire documentary, “Kinsey’s
Paedophiles.” In fact, Playboy helped fund the Kinsey Institute,
pioneering pornography as a sexual health tonic. No surprise that
Reinisch cites Playboy’s “convenience sample of college students” in
JAMA as confirming her study.

William Jefferson Clinton rates a “10” for support of both sexology
and the sex industry, with his own sex habits friendly to Washington’s
sex industry lobbyists. On the empirical and statistical evidence, legal
and illegal pornography has flourished under Clinton. The National
Obscenity Law Center reports that the Clinton administration rejected
referrals for obscenity violations by other investigative agencies at
the rate of 68 percent in 1993, 95 percent in 1994, 100 percent in 1995
and 70 percent in 1996, launching six pathetic obscenity prosecutions in
1997. The sex industry, formal and informal, would logically seek to
maintain a president so sympathetic to their business.

Briefly then, let us look at Reinisch’s mentor, the alleged family
man and pure scientist who built her “Kinsey Institute.” Alfred C.
Kinsey authored “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” in 1948, and “Sexual
Behavior in the Human Female” in 1953. In 1997 Kinsey was finally outed
by insider-biographer James Jones as a closeted and violent
sado-masochistic, adulterous, bi-homosexual, pornography producer/addict
and a bully. As a national authority who habitually seduced his young,
comely male students, the first Kinsey Institute director also solicited
and collaborated with a World War II Nazi child molester, just
identified as Dr. Fritz von Balluscheck in Yorkshire’s “Kinsey’s
Paedophiles.” “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences” documents Kinsey, a likely
pedophile, procuring child molesters to sexually experiment on up to
2,035 screaming, fainting, collapsing, gasping children, as young as two
months of age, 24 hours around the clock, to “prove” children’s alleged
sexual capacity. On the evidence, Reinisch, claiming the privilege of
“objective” science, covered-up Kinsey’s dishonorably savage sex survey
frauds, his sexual psychopathology and his appeal for men to sexually
and incestuously victimize children.

The BBC said Kinsey’s adult and child sex “data” launched the sexual
revolution, forging legal changes in Western sex laws based almost
entirely on lawmakers believing the claims made by “sexologists”
regarding the underlying scientific subject matter. Kinsey claimed to
document the sexual life of average Americans, “I discovered [the facts]
about human sexual behaviour” just as Reinisch claimed to report on “how
Americans as a population define [sexual] terms.” In fact, 50 years
later we find Kinsey lied. His male “data,” reflecting a roughly 86
percent aberrant population of largely sex offenders, elevated “sodomy”
from its illegal, debased status to some legality as “oral sex” and
“sexual variation.” Then, the 1955 American Law Institute Draft Model
Penal Code cited the Kinsey Institute phony data to convince
legislatures and judges nationwide that oral and anal sodomy were
healthy “sexual outlets” on a par with the marital union or the
tender embrace of a Romeo and Juliet.

Not to forget June’s “academic freedom.” As principal investigator
for the U.S. Department of Justice funded study, “Images of Children,
Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler” (1953-1984)
Reisman’s peer-approved content analysis found images of the common
“missionary position” rare, autoerotic and oral sodomy the chief acts in
mainstream heterosexual (and later, homosexual) pornography, with
buttocks assuming serious focus in the last decade. The formal (sex
education) and informal (pornography) sex industries and their consumers
thus see oral sex as bankable sex.

The Kinsey Institute pornography “turn” is seen also in Wardell
Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author, who, while publishing classroom child sex
education books was seeking funds from commercial pornographers to
produce child sex films (child pornography, for research purposes
only). Pomeroy (an academic courtroom mercenary for Larry Flynt) pushed
“positive incest” both for Penthouse Forum and for child pornographer
Flynt, Clinton’s patron saint. News flash: dirty money can turn
out dirty science. On the evidence, the Kinsey Institute and its
satellite sexology centers have long profit-shared with adult and child
pornographers. For, not only did Pomeroy shill for Larry Flynt, former
Kinsey Institute director Paul Gebhard shilled for Penthouse; both men
assuring their one handed consumers that the Kinsey Institute provedincest normal and harmless.

And, speaking of embarrassing, since Reinisch criticized the AMA
firing based on “academic freedom,” (that is, trying to cover up
uncomfortable truths) let’s end this short article by excerpting a
private memo from Gebhard to Reinisch (his successor) warning her to
cover-up Kinsey’s phony data:

[Y]our recent letter of December 3 [1990], which I gather was
sent to a number of individuals as well as to me, [which] refuted Judith
Reisman’s allegations about Kinsey and the Institute … may embarrass
you and the university if it comes to Reisman’s attention. Hence I want
to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage
control might be devised.

So much for “academic freedom,” as Reinisch initiated massive
“damage control” to hide Kinsey’s fraud and sexology’s pornographic
“special interests.” In sum, by 1948 a group of psychosexually
disordered men organized themselves into a sex “profession” at the
Kinsey Institute which spawned Kinseyan satellite sexology agencies,
profitably producing and using pornography as “sex therapy” for
themselves and others. “Damage control” required that Reinisch cover up
the fact that pornographers like Larry Flynt were in business with
sexologists, sloshing about in the same slime pit. The JAMA article was
doubtless planned to aid the president, by all accounts a habitué of
pornographic sex. But, dirty money turns out dirty science. If, as
Justice Breyer said, “law cases can turn almost entirely on an
understanding of the underlying technical or scientific subject
matter,” that understanding had better not turn on special interests
wrapped in the cloak of science.